eiffel-org/documentation/current/method/void-safe-programming-eiffel/creating-new-void-safe-project.wiki

[[Property:title|Creating a new void-safe project]]
[[Property:weight|2]]
[[Property:uuid|92cea2e9-b094-6380-2c5d-1cd1eb3038b4]]
{{underconstruction}}



=Creating a new void-safe project=

Now that we've been introduced to the Eiffel void-safe facilities, let's look at what it takes to set up a new void-safe software project. Here we'll look at the void-safety related project settings and how the can be used. Then we'll look deeper into the use of some of the void-safe tools.

==Project settings for void-safe projects==

There are three project settings that are related to void-safety. These settings can be set with great granularity throughout your project to allow you maximum flexibility, particularly when including classes or libraries that are non-void-safe or that have been converted to void-safety, but must do double duty in the void-safe and non-void-safe worlds. 

===The ''"Void-safe"'' setting===

The '''Void-safe''' setting determines whether and how the Eiffel compiler checks your project against the void-safe related validity rules. 

This is the essential void-safe project setting. It can assume one of three values:
# '''No void safety''': No checking against any of the void-safety validity rules.
# '''On demand void safety''': Validity rules are selectively checked. Attachment status (VJAR/VBAR and related) is taken into account when performing conformance checks, but initialization rule (VEVI) and the target rule (VUTA) are checked only for attached entities and attached call targets -- i.e., detachable cases are not checked. 
# '''Complete void safety''': Complete checking against all void-safety validity rules.

So, for a new void-safe project, you would want to set this option to either '''Complete void safety''' or '''On demand void safety'''.

===The ''"Are types attached by default?"'' setting===

It is this setting that tells the compiler how to treat declarations which specify neither the <code>detachable</code> keyword nor the <code>attached</code> keyword, for example:
<code>
    x: T
</code>
A value of '''True''' will instruct the compiler to treat <code>x</code> as if it were declared:
<code>
    x: attached T
</code>
A value of '''False''', and <code>x</code> will be viewed as if it were:
<code>
    x: detachable T
</code>

In a new project, ideally all of your declarations would be of attached types. But of course there are some occasions, for various reasons, that you must or should use detachable types. 

So, for a new void-safe project, it is recommended that a value of '''True''' is used. 

===The ''"Full class checking"'' setting===

This setting instructs the compiler to recheck inherited features in descendant classes. 

'''Full class checking''' should always be set to '''True''' when compiling void-safe code.


==Void-safe libraries==

As of EiffelStudio version 6.4, the majority of the libraries distributed with EiffelStudio are void-safe. 

{{note|During a period of transition, there will be different Eiffel configuration files (.ecf's) for non-void-safe and void-safe projects (for example, base.ecf and base-safe.ecf). If you have set the '''Void-safe''' setting to check for void-safety, then when you add a library to your project in EiffelStudio, you will see only the void-safe configurations by default. After the transition period, it is expected that there will be only one version of each of the configuration files for each library. The single configuration files will serve both non-void-safe and void-safe projects. }}

==Using non-void-safe libraries==

==Using the ''attribute'' keyword carefully==

The keyword <code>attribute</code> is should be used with some care. You might be tempted to think that it would be convenient or add an extra element of safety to use self-initializing attributes widely. And in a way, you would be correct. But you should also understand that there is a price to pay for using self-initializing attributes and stable attributes. It is that upon every access, an evaluation of the state of the attribute must be made. So, as a general rule, you should avoid using self-initializing attributes only for the purpose of lazy initialization.

==More about the ''attached syntax''==

===As a CAP which yields a local variable===

In the introduction to the attached syntax, we used an example which showed how the attached syntax is directly relevant to void-safety. That is, the code: 
<code>
            if x /= Void then
--              ... Any other instructions here that do not assign to x
                x.f (a)
            end
</code>

is a CAP for <code>x</code> ... but that's only true if <code>x</code> is a local variable or a formal argument to the routine that contains the code. 

So to access a detachable attribute safely,  we could declare a local variable, make an assignment, and test for <code>Void</code> as above. Something like this:
<code>
    my_detachable_attribute: detachable MY_TYPE

            ...
    some_routine
        local
           x: like my_detachable_attribute
        do
            x := my_detachable_attribute
            if x /= Void then
--              ... Any other instructions here that do not assign to x
                x.f (a)
            end
                ...
</code>
The attached syntax can both check the attached status of a detachable attribute and also provide a new local variable. So the routine becomes:
<code>
    some_routine
        do
            if attached my_detachable_attribute as x then
--                  ... Any other instructions here that do not assign to x
                x.f (a)
            end
                ...
</code>

===As a test for attachment===

In its simplest form, the attached syntax can be used to test attached status only:
<code>
            if attached x then
                do_something
            else
                do_something_different
            end
</code>

So in this simple form, <code>attached x</code> can be used instead of <code>x /= Void</code>. The two are semantically equivalent, and which one you choose is a matter of personal preference. 


===As a tool for "once per object"===

There is a code pattern for functions that exists in some Eiffel software to effect "once-per-object / lazy evaluation". 

{{note|This is different from an Eiffel <code>once</code> routine, which is "once-per-thread" or "once-per-process" depending upon how it is configured. }}

This "once-per-object" code pattern employs a cached value for some object which is not exported. When it is applied, the "once-per-object" function checks the attachment status of the cached value. If the cached value is void, then it is created and assigned to <code>Result</code>. If the cached value was found already to exist, then it is just assigned to <code>Result</code>. 

Here's an example of this pattern used to produce some descriptive text of an instance of its class:

<code>
feature -- Access

    descriptive_text: STRING
        local
            l_result: like descriptive_text_cache
        do
            l_result := descriptive_text_cache
            if l_result = Void then
                create Result.make_empty
--			... Build Result with appropriate descriptive text for Current
                descriptive_text_cache := Result
            else
                Result := l_result
            end
        ensure
            result_attached: Result /= Void
            result_not_empty: not Result.is_empty
            result_consistent: Result = descriptive_text
        end

feature {NONE} -- Implementation

    descriptive_text_cache: like descriptive_text

</code>
This example will not compile in a void-safe project (assuming types are attached by default). The problem is that the attribute <code>descriptive_text_cache</code> is of an attached type, therefore will be flagged by the compiler as not properly set (VEVI). Of course, it will be ... that's the whole idea here: not to initialize <code>descriptive_text_cache</code> until it's actually used. So it sounds like <code>descriptive_text_cache</code> should be declared detachable. That is:
<code>
    descriptive_text_cache: detachable like descriptive_text
</code>
This change will make this routine compile in a void-safe project. But you should notice that there is a ripple-down effect due to the change. Within the routine, <code>l_result</code> is typed <code>like descriptive_text_cache</code>, so it also will be detachable. Therefore we might expect trouble, because later in the routine we have:
<code>
                Result := l_result
</code>
Because we know Result is attached and l_result is detachable, we might expect a compiler error in which the source of an assignment does not conform to its target (VJAR). 

But we don't get such an error. The reason is two-fold. First, <code>l_result</code> is a local variable whose use can be protected by a CAP. Second, the CAP in this case is the check to ensure that <code>l_result</code> is not void. We only make the assignment to <code>Result</code> if <code>l_result</code> is not void. So the compiler can prove that <code>l_result</code> cannot be void at the point at which the assignment occurs ... therefore, no error.

Because the '''attached syntax''' can test attached status and provide a local variable, it can be used to remove some unnecessary code from this routine. The version of the routine that follows shows the attached syntax being used to test the attached status of <code>descriptive_text_cache</code> and yield the local variable <code>l_result</code> in the case that <code>descriptive_text_cache</code> is indeed attached. 
<code>
    descriptive_text: STRING
        do
            if attached descriptive_text_cache as l_result then
                Result := l_result
            else
                create Result.make_empty
                descriptive_text_cache := Result
            end
        ensure
            result_attached: Result /= Void
            result_not_empty: not Result.is_empty
            result_consistent: Result = descriptive_text
    end
</code>


===As a replacement for assignment attempt===

The assignment attempt ( <code>?=</code> ) has traditionally been used to deal with external objects (e.g., persistent objects from files and databases) and to narrow the type of an object in order to use more specific features. The latter is a process known by names such as "down casting" in some technological circles. A classic example is doing specific processing on some elements of a polymorphic data structure. Let's look at an example. Suppose we have a <code>LIST</code> of items of type <code>POLYGON</code>:
<code>
    my_polygons: LIST [POLYGON]
</code>
<code>POLYGON</code>s could be of many specific types, and one of those could be <code>RECTANGLE</code>. Suppose too that we want to print the measurements of the diagonals of all the <code>RECTANGLE</code>s in the list. Class <code>RECTANGLE</code> might have a query <code>diagonal</code> returning such a measurement, but <code>POLYGON</code> would not, for the reason that the concept of diagonal is not meaningful for all <code>POLYGON</code>s, e.g., <code>TRIANGLE</code>s.

As we traverse the list we would use assignment attempt to try to attach each <code>POLYGON</code> to a variable typed as <code>RECTANGLE</code>. If successful, we can print the result of the application of <code>diagonal</code>. 
<code>
    l_my_rectangle: RECTANGLE

                ...
            from
                my_polygons.start
            until
                my_polygons.exhausted
            loop
                l_my_rectangle ?= my_polygons.item
                if l_my_rectangle /= Void then
                    print (l_my_rectangle.diagonal)
                    print ("%N")
                end
            end
</code>
The '''attached syntax''' allows us to check both attached status and type, and provides us with a fresh local variable when appropriate:
<code>
            from
                my_polygons.start
            until
                my_polygons.exhausted
            loop
                if attached {RECTANGLE} my_polygons.item as l_my_rectangle then
                    print (l_my_rectangle.diagonal)
                    print ("%N")
                end
            end
</code>
As with the other examples of the '''attached syntax''', it is no longer necessary to make a declaration for the local variable, in this case <code>l_my_rectangle</code>.


==More about CAPs==

You might wonder about the use of a CAP which employs a <code>check</code> instruction like this:

<code>
    my_detachable_any: detachable ANY
            ...
    my_attached_any: ANY
        local
            l_result: like my_detachable_any
        do
            l_result := my_detachable_any
            check
                attached l_result 
            end
            Result := l_result
        end
</code>

The assertion in the <code>check</code> guarantees that <code>l_result</code> is attached at the time of its assignment to <code>Result</code>. If <code>my_detachable_any</code> had not been attached, then an exception would have occurred. 

This would be fine in ''workbench'' code, but what happens if the code is ''finalized'' and assertions are discarded?

The answer is that the <code>check</code> remains in force in finalized code, because it is necessary to prove void-safety.



==Stable attributes==